Edit preset (overwrites stored settings)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It discloses that changes are applied atomically, that a physics gate (check_profile_physics) runs first, and that it returns error=physics_blocked for changes that would introduce new failures. It also clarifies that pre-existing failures do not block unrelated edits. This adds significant behavioral context. The destructiveHint is consistent with 'overwrites stored settings'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds essential details (atomicity, physics gate, error behavior) without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is well-organized: purpose, execution steps, and validation/error handling.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, the atomic apply, the physics gate, and error handling. It does not explain the return value, but that may be less critical for a write operation. The main gap is the ambiguous 'type' parameter, which prevents full completeness. Overall, it is quite thorough for its complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'name' (the preset's name) and 'changes' (the settings to edit), but 'type' is left entirely unexplained. The description does not indicate what values 'type' should take, how it relates to 'name', or the structure of the 'changes' object beyond being a nested object. This is a significant gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Edit a named preset's settings and persist them.' It specifies the action (edit), the resource (named preset), and the outcome (persist). The title 'overwrites stored settings' and the detail about saving under the same name further distinguish it from sibling tools like save_preset or delete_preset.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to modify and persist an existing named preset. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'selects it ... saves under the same name' implies editing existing presets rather than creating new ones. Sibling tool names (save_preset, delete_preset, rename_preset) help contextualize, though the description does not directly reference them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.